Sure manufacturers can always get away with "well you can just convert it to a big TIFF file (or DNG) in later stage in the process using tool ABC we provide on platform XY under license Z", but is it really so unreasonable to demand that the camera output is an open format? I don't think so.

you have the full right to demand everything and they have the full right to follow the real market demand and real market demand is not about DNG because you buy and use non DNG cameras, hence your demands are not serious... you do not have any alternatives otherwise you will be there... manufacturers understand only $$$ and only demands that when unmet results in $$$ loss... DNG demand does not mean $$$ loss.

Yes Yair, I saw it, and actually replied too . The actual technical aspect here I can deal with, since I don't need to play with C1 that often I can mess around some extra with those files, so it's cool.

On the main issue on why current products don't use DNG and why file formats are generally closed for the public I have my opinions on and I like to ventilate them and see what people think. So I'm sorry if I'm being a pain in the b*tt , but it's nothing personal...

you have the full right to demand everything and they have the full right to follow the real market demand and real market demand is not about DNG because you buy and use non DNG cameras, hence your demands are not serious... you do not have any alternatives otherwise you will be there... manufacturers understand only $$$ and only demands that when unmet results in $$$ loss... DNG demand does not mean $$$ loss.

You are being a bit categorical, but that's kind of entertaining I guess .

You do point out a problem, when manufacturers are large enough and provide enough value to the customers they can do a bit as they like. This is perhaps more evident in the world of internet services. Facebook can change their integrity policies and lots of people get upset, but they still continue to use facebook because they have so much use of that service. Google would have to do some increadibly bad thing before folks would stop using the gmail etc.

But turn it the other way around, what would the company risk from using DNG? Nothing really at this point. There are already companies that have made the move.

And I do think there are management decisions from time to time made not entirely from short term $$$. Some think about how the brand should be viewed upon and things like that, and some just do things because they think it's a fair thing to do. Introducing DNG (or opening up proprietary formats to the public) can be such a thing.

Say if Canon completely changed the raw format, encrypted it and only made raw processing available through their native processing software, and they would say "you can always develop to 16 bit tiff in our software and continue in lightroom whatever afterwards" would I then sell my Canon gear? I don't know really. It would surely hurt a lot, but it's a mess to change camera platform.

DNG is still controlled by Adobe (and remember - Google makes hardware, MS makes hardware... there is good chance that Adobe will start making hardware too... and which hardware Adobe might start to make ?) - no changes or additions to DNG standards so far can be done w/ Adobe's OK regardless of where DNG standard was submitted... free != safe.

I've seen you make this claim before...Adobe is not and never has been interested in hardware, just cross platform software. There is no evidence what so ever for this claim. As far as 3rd parties making changes to the DNG SDK? I know of several occasions where Adobe changed aspects of DNG to satisfy 3rd parties. Adobe allowed the ISO to change the TIFF spec for TIFF-EP...so there is history at Adobe for working with standards. Compare that to the camera companies...EXIF is a standard too, which Nikon and Canon (and others) often choose to ignore. The various camera company's track records are very poor relating to standards.

my view:1. if you want a back with DNG, buy one or make your own;1a. DNG converter if you want it so bad;2. the cameras I have that don't have DNG, I am perfectly OK with. I knew when I purchased them what they had;3. I don't trust Adobe any further than I can throw them.

my view:1. if you want a back with DNG, buy one or make your own;1a. DNG converter if you want it so bad;2. the cameras I have that don't have DNG, I am perfectly OK with. I knew when I purchased them what they had;3. I don't trust Adobe any further than I can throw them.

not SDK but DNG standard... what Panasonic did, forced Adobe to change the standard, but Panasonic neither had to ask, nor wait, nor to disclose in advance... and as the result -> DNG SDK was changed as well

so there is history at Adobe for working with standards. Compare that to the camera companies...EXIF is a standard too, which Nikon and Canon (and others) often choose to ignore. The various camera company's track records are very poor relating to standards.

true, however that does not mean that they want to be in a position to wait or ask Adobe to "allow" something

Say if Canon completely changed the raw format, encrypted it and only made raw processing available through their native processing software, and they would say "you can always develop to 16 bit tiff in our software and continue in lightroom whatever afterwards" would I then sell my Canon gear? I don't know really. It would surely hurt a lot, but it's a mess to change camera platform.

look, if you imagine something about "C" you can as well imagine something about "A"... the reality is - C does not have DNG files and I am yet to witness somebody leaving C for XYZ because of that... specifically people who are living in Adobe's raw conversion realm and who do not experience any difference based on what is the input for their LR or ACR... Adobe's software is like a gun... it makes everything so equal, so far from raw

The opcodes for DNG do indeed support lens data correction...so all Panasonic would need to do is correctly embed the lens correction data.

the issue is - when Panasonic did that - there was no Adobe DNG standard to support that... and no such standard was in place for quite a long time since first Panasonic cameras w/ such .RW2 raw files hit the market

Read the question again! He didn't ask about access to source code data. He asked Who will support your raw files if your camera/software maker passes away?which is a valid question. Who supports my really old Kodak DCS data today?

look, if you imagine something about "C" you can as well imagine something about "A"... the reality is - C does not have DNG files and I am yet to witness somebody leaving C for XYZ because of that... specifically people who are living in Adobe's raw conversion realm and who do not experience any difference based on what is the input for their LR or ACR... Adobe's software is like a gun... it makes everything so equal, so far from raw

It makes everything so equal I choose to use other tools . But I'm still interested in open formats. Canon's raw format has been reverse engineered for years and has a relatively stable implementation. Makes me a little bit less annoyed (requiring new silly micro additions for each new model due to lack of meta data is annoying though). Leaf's compressed format has not been reverse engineered at all and there's some issues with one program wanting compressed and an other uncompressed, and I need to use conversion tools. Makes me a little bit more annoyed. All annoyance could be avoided if they implemented DNG. My use case is a bit special though, I admit. If you use the latest and greatest and only standard tools it's smooth.

Only in extreme situations photographers leave a brand from one single reason. Instead it is usually several smaller things and annoyances adding up over time. If I were an MFDB maker I would in these days try to make things that make photographers less annoyed, to get some margin. Implementing DNG is a really low risk, low cost, and a right thing to do(tm), which some have realized and reacted on, but others still stubbornly refuse for no apparent reason except from annoying people.

and we know that nazis (no relation to Adobe) granted some exceptions to some jewish people... so ?

Yeah, ya know...you have crossed the line bud...you just ceased to exist for me. You'll be happy to hear this is the last time I will EVER respond to you and I would encourage Mike (or Chris) to ban you for this kinda shyte. You bring nothing useful to the table...buzz off doode.

1. If my RAW files are around tomorrow, fine. If they are not, fine. I am not that important that they need to exist. The images prove nothing, show nothing. 2. Get a new camera.3. Again, the images I make and the RAW files from them are not that important in this world - there are more important things. If they survive, they will simply take up space somewhere. And I can always create more images and more RAW files ...

One (for me) hassle with the ever changing RAW formats is the need to upgrade software all the time. I used to buy about every second iteration of Adobes software, and every second iteration of Capture1. The same went for Microsoft office (to read files other folks send me).

Because I now upgrade my day to day cameras with every iteration, I ofthen have to buy every iteration of software due to raw incompatibility with previous software generations (ACR - Adobe Camera Raw, being the prime example.) If camera makers wrote to a DNG format, this would presumably be easier, even though there are frequent updates to that format also.

My costs are basically up by an small sum because of proprietary formats.

Other issues are software/firmware tie-ins to operating systems. When Apple upgraded their OS a little while back, Canon's stopped working tethered to Capture1 because of software issues. This was a disaster to me, as my assistant just pressed the "upgrade" button on the laptop I use for location work, and a number of following shoots had to be shot to CF card due to tethering problems (I always shoot tethered for the client to see the work progress and be able to provide feedback to me.)

I wholeheartedly support open file formats and standards, on everything that produces files. For me the only true answer to how much DNG factors in is if one of the big two (canon/nikon) would offer DNG on their very top model. Only then would we see if it had any impact on camera choice.

On a side note about standards, even attatching .jpg files in emails are a hassle. Clients with windows machines ofthen complain of "not being able to save" the .jpg from a mail attatchment. So I have to make a .zip file as the attachment, and then they dont understand how to open the .zip, etc. etc. Life would be sooo easy if there was an accepted open standard for compressing files across operating systems. A lot of clients don't even understand how to download and open .zip files if I make a download link for them. They do such things as click on the temporary files to open them before they are downloaded, try to move the temp files before they are downloaded, etc.